One “Man,” One Vote

It's been a while since the presidential elections. There have been many news cycles and the issue is quiet now, so it's a good time to address it. Donald Trump was elected president. But Hillary Clinton got more votes than he did. Neither got a majority. Neither had the trust of the American people. Yet the election and its results were the source of more passion than we have experienced in recent years. There have been protests and riots by Clinton supporters who refuse to accept Trump as their president. Assorted “hate-crimes” have been attributed to those who voted for Trump, and they're viewed as racists.

The media have echoed many of these accusations, and press coverage has often paralleled that during the campaign, with those who oppose the new administration continuing to find fault with the new president and his transition team. Despite the fact that it is moving faster than some of the previous administrations, they have accused it of failure to act and of poor performance and disunity in general. They made no such accusations when those they supported had been elected, and they didn't use the post-election period then as a time to sow discord among the electorate. That's not really much of a surprise in view of the idea that the first thing that a party (and its partisans) must do following an election I to begin preparations for the next election.

There's an important additional issue that the election has raised. Though the situation is not unique, there is much angst about a minority president. On four previous occasions (and this makes five although the vote discrepancy is the greatest now) we have elected a minority president (in this instance a “minority president” is defined as a candidate who has fewer votes than another candidate – there have been others in which the winner had a minority of the votes but had a plurality – Abraham Lincoln, for example, received only 39 percent of the popular vote in 1860 but nearly 60% of the electoral votes), although this happens for no other office. It results from the existence of the Electoral College, which occupies a disproportional part of the Constitution, and which was altered by the Twelfth Amendment. And while it interposes “electors” between the voters and the candidates, within each state the slate of electors is chosen by majority vote. The electors are free to vote for candidates other than those they claimed to support, but that has not happened. The system certainly puts the voter closer to the choice for leader than what exists in many other democracies – a selection by members of the winning party.

It's important to remember how we arrived at this system, and the history of our country tells us. We have a federal government (courtesy of the Federalists naturally) that represented the union of several pre-existing states that feared the loss of their significance when the new country was formed. Their advocates wanted assurance that the states would remain the representatives of their people and their territory. They believed that many decisions were best made locally. They didn't agree that “one size fits all.” James Madison's Electoral College was one of the mechanisms by which they retained authority locally – perhaps for the better. Were we to declare now that popular vote should be the decisor of presidential elections, the strength of the states would be significantly weakened, and large parts of the country would have little chance to meet with the candidates (and, indeed, the candidates would have little interest in most of the country) since their primary involvement would be in the large cities. The majority would be of much greater concern then the minority.

And that raises another question: What is our responsibility to minorities? We certainly emphasize the view that the majority should not be able to impose its will on those minorities in which we find ourselves, or with which we identify. We're sensitive to cultural and economic differences – even if we deny any differences among our “majority” citizens. We've even ascribed “minority” status to women, who are in the majority. The term, and the concept of protection of minorities, have come to be more issues of politics than anything else. And in the process we have chosen to take our stand for majority “rights” on a political issue – a constitutional one – as we reject it otherwise. We favor minority rights as long as they are beneficial to us or to our philosophy.

As I noted, in all likelihood by the time this essay is published the Electoral College will not be among the most important matters we're considering. There won't be many Google^® searches for it. However if the concept is wrong, it is wrong even between election cycles, and it is worthy of debate before it becomes an point of contention once again. But if we decide to eliminate it, with the consequent strengthening of the federal system and the weakening or elimination of any significance of individual states, we should consider the results of such an act. A nation in which a dirt farmer and a banker, a Hollywood movie star and a Detroit mechanic, a retiree in Florida and an entrepreneur in Alaska, are all treated identically and with indistinguishable expectations and obligations, may not be the answer to our problems.

One man one vote is sacrosanct, but in many ways it's insufficient.




November 17, 2016

Whatever Happened To … ?

There was a presidential election last November. No one got a majority of the votes. It happens when there are more than two reasonably popular (or unpopular) candidates. What results in such an election is that one of those running has a plurality – more votes than anyone else, but not a majority. And that person is usually chosen President.

But not always. And that isn't what transpired in this election. The system we use puts the final decision in the hands of an “electoral college,” a construct that lets a majority of voters in each state register votes for the president, which are cast almost always unanimously by the electors who proffer the state's votes. That prevents a few states with large population from deciding a result that may be detrimental to the majority of the states though they lack a majority of voters. It's a constitutional provision.

And whenever it occurs there's a demand that the Constitution be changed and that popular vote be the deciding factor. That's what just happened this time. (Although attention to the problem disappeared when other things appeared in the news. Whatever happened to all the rage that initially surrounded the issue?)

Changing the subject a bit, the second amendment to the Constitution provides for arming of “the people.” There are many, myself included, who believe the amendment is too broad – perhaps even unwise in our times – but it's part of our Constitution, our laws, and we're obliged to accept it.

Yet whenever there's a violent incident involving a firearm there is immediate outrage and protest regarding the amendment. However the situation is usually forgotten quickly by most of our citizens as other news supersedes it. And those who continue opposing firearms wonder whatever happened to the anger. Our attention span is limited.

That's the way it is with most issues today. The world's changes and the news in general come in such great volumes and variety that we get excited only for the moment and then forget our indignation and move on to the next issue. Most problems are not solved. Of course if new legislation aids a particular lobby, or improves the image of some politician it has a good chance of implementation – if the opposition isn't sufficiently significant.

But there's another way that change takes place. Even if we don't change the laws we can alter our understanding of what they mean. The courts do it all the time. Thus, for example, although the courts acknowledge and affirm the Second Amendment – they're sworn to uphold the Constitution – they're quick to permit limitations of the “right” as legislated by individual localities. Hence there are requirements for registration of the weapons, requirements for training of those permitted to own them, safety rules, and a plethora of other regulations that control use. Proponents of such restrictions demand further limitations – at least that's what they encourage – but their real goal is elimination of the amendment. And perhaps their goal is worthwhile.

The use of interpretation is time honored. It occurs in regard to religious dicta and literary works, in addition to legal ordinances, and the idea has much merit. Not only does it allow for the filling in of lacunae which were intended by their authors as foci of thought, but it allows advocates of change corresponding to modern conditions.

But there are many who believe that the courts “interpret” laws to coincide with their own biases or those of the “squeaky wheels.” Not always, but enough of the time. Hence there are new definitions of privacy (a concept not mentioned in the Constitution) to include an array of sexual practices, decisions about health, and others issues involving various “isms.” There are other “interpretations” as well. Though I favor some of them, I'm not certain that the writers of the Constitution and its amendments would approve. “Whatever.” they would wonder, “happened to the rule of law? We gave them a mechanism to change the Constitution, but they have chosen to protest and 'interpret' their way around those provisions they don't like.”

I agree. Much of what currently favors alternatives to the document as written are based on whim, bias, and fashion. That doesn't mean they are wrong, though some of the views are clearly out of touch with the views of a majority of Americans. But many assert that we're as smart as the Founding Fathers and we're attuned to recent societal changes. What we want makes sense.

That view the Constitution's authors would surely support. And they would reiterate a challenge to rewrite or add to the Constitution on which our democracy is based. The process is difficult, but there is a process. Not just loud voices.

Whatever happened to process and order?

Minority, Plurality, Majority Rule

Every now and then the president we elect doesn't get a majority of the popular vote. It's happened several times, and there are two variations of the problem. There are instances when, because there are more than two candidates, none gets a majority of the votes, but the one with the plurality is elected. That, however, isn't always the case. Sometimes in a presidential contest a candidate with a minority of the popular vote – and less than his opponent – wins more than half the electoral votes, and, thus, the presidency. It usually triggers a debate over whether the Constitution should be revised in accordance with our “one man [person], one vote” principle, but no action is taken and the debate dies out until it happens again.

It did. And, at least for the moment, the debate has died out.

Indeed, the angst regarding the Electoral College has abated for the time being. People objected to a minority president with 46.2% of the popular vote. (He had over 56% of the electoral vote.) His opponent would also have been a minority president. (Most of us – and that includes me – opposed them both.) But we aren't of one mind on the issue of whether we favor majority rule. Some have marched to protest the results of the last election, but the calls for an end to the current way of electing a president are no longer prominent. On the surface the matter seems obvious, but it is far more complicated, and there is much to be said for the view of our Founders. That, however, is not the subject of this essay, so let me return to the point.

We're great believers in democracy which, we insist, requires majority rule. The concept needs some tweaking because all issues are not binary, and there are times when we accept the view of the largest number – a plurality rather than a majority. And the rule applies to large or small numbers. For example, a majority vote by a full Supreme Court may mean that five people decide our laws, irrespective of the wishes of our legislators or ourselves. The Court has that right, and we support the majority.

Yet we back minorities elsewhere, and the media report immediately even on minuscule minorities when they protest. The reason for their protest is irrelevant. Whether it is about elections, immigration, policing, abortion, or any other cause – and irrespective of the number of participants, even if small – the media and public sympathy support virtually any protest. Minorities say they represent our values and we owe it to them to express our admiration. For example, if a group protests the wealth of the “one percent” (a minority but that's irrelevant in this case), it doesn't matter that the group is far smaller than the one percent or, if their lottery ticket is a winner, they'd be part of it. We sanction their indignation. And if they are members of a “minority group” named by the government, we approve even more strongly of the virtue of their cause, whatever it is. We love minorities.

Similarly there's no protest of the Senate rule allowing a smaller minority than in the election, by threatening filibuster, to block critical debates – to prevent the discussion of and action on issues that bear on our everyday lives. A problem relating to the Senate rules that may appear daily gets little more than a shrug of the shoulders and acknowledgment that that's the way the “game” is played. In fact we often admire what they do – not giving in to what they claim is evil. We laud them for preventing the majority from running roughshod over the minority, as we do in other situations. They may be simply following party discipline and creating issues for the next election, yet they claim to be a minority that stands up for principle.

Sometimes, however, the minority has too much power. We're advised to pick our arguments carefully, but sometimes we argue and oppose for their own sake. We don't take stands on what really affects us, reserving our wrath for our opponents, rather than their positions. And we lend our support to particular groups because of who they are, rather than the issues for which they advocate – while we avoid the real problems we face as we join a popular protest.

It's clear. Filibuster reform should precede changes in the Electoral College. The Senate is where the most disruptive minority functions – or refuses to do so. It should have to deal with the real problems we face rather than posture and politic.

And the rest of us should decide the limits of minority rule.

Super Tuesday

Yesterday was “Super Tuesday,” and the nomination process is all but over. That the two main candidates, Clinton and Trump, may both be indicted, didn't affect their momentum. Should legal actions be undertaken (Trump for fraud in his on-line university and Clinton for illegal e-mail practices and lying to the American People) both will probably claim that it's all political, and will use it to stir up the masses against the system. Trump certainly will, and in no uncertain terms, but Clinton will have to be a little more subtle about the message, since it will reflect on the government of which she was a part. I'm certain, though, that she'll find a way.

They have similarities, but also big differences. Both have been faulted for statements they have made, but while Clinton tries to explain them away, Trump glories in them and brags about them. Clinton wears her heart on her sleeve, bemoaning the plight of the underprivileged, and appealing to the numerous interest groups that view government as the answer to all their difficulties, while Trump wears his hate on his sleeve. His appeal is to all those whose interest is in America's strength – however that is viewed by others. In fact he would exclude all others. Both are populists, though their constituencies are very different. Those favoring Trump are ignorant and bigoted, and they don't care, as long as America is strong and proud. The supporters of Clinton's campaign are also ignorant, but believe themselves to be intellectuals. They are embarrassed by their country and can only see its faults – or what they consider its faults. And they're quick to point out what they view as the defects of other countries – defects which reflect more their own bigotry than the flaws they project on those countries. They represent parties that are becoming more polarized, at the end of a regime that promised to bring us all together.

I was speaking to my sons about the situation a few days ago and both mentioned the possibility of leaving our country. They foresaw disaster irrespective of which of them might win. (And Bernie Sanders would also be a frightening possibility.) It's hard to know how serious they are, but it's hard to dismiss what they said out of hand. I'm too old to start a new life somewhere else so, concerned as I might be, leaving isn't really an option. And, I suspect, there are millions of other Americans who are equally troubled by the candidates likely to be on the ballot.

A solution that has been proposed is a third party effort. Typically, third parties don't get a majority (and typically mayors of New York City go no further politically). Theodore Roosevelt demonstrated this problem as, more recently, did Strom Thurmond and Ross Perot. There's no reason to think it would be any different this time. But all of them siphoned votes from other candidates and won electoral votes for themselves. Wilson only won in 1912 when he was chosen by the Electoral College after earning what was a minority of the popular vote. Michael Bloomberg has floated the possibility of running such a campaign, and were he to do well enough it might mean that the decision becomes the responsibility of the College. Perhaps practical electors will rethink the ideological issues and the populism, and compromise on a candidate less tainted by them. Indeed, Mr. Bloomberg has both experience in government and in business and economics. And he is far less caught up in polarized ideology than either of the other candidates. At the very least, a respectable showing would send a strong message to the winner.

The times are frightening. We face an election that is likely to split our people as never before. The only positive feature is that old party loyalties will be rethought by many who would be unable to vote for their party's offering. Unfortunately, that positive feature is not enough to justify the cost to our country – both locally and in world opinion.